The Government has announced new restrictions preventing children under the age of 16 from accessing social media platforms, marking one of the most significant changes to online safety legislation in recent years. While the move has been welcomed by child safety campaigners, education leaders and parents concerned about the impact of social media on young people’s mental health, experts warn that enforcement, age verification and parental attitudes will be critical to the policy’s success. Industry leaders, safeguarding specialists and technology providers have also called for tougher regulations on social media companies, arguing that children need safer digital environments designed specifically for their age group rather than relying solely on age-based bans.
Ofcom spokesperson: “So far, Ofcom has driven some of the strongest changes of any online safety regulation in the world, from widespread age checks to grooming protections for children. But the industry needs to go much further to make people safe. The Government has entrusted us to build on this progress with new measures to protect children, and we’re ready to work closely with them as the detailed regulations take shape.”
Social Media Ban Reinforces Need for Technology Designed Specifically for Children, Says Sayph
Responding to reports that the Government has announced a ban on social media access for under-16s, Sayph founder Ben Humphrey, said:
“Children deserve their own category of technology.
While we welcome today’s announcement, its significance is not whether the age limit should be 16 instead of 13. It’s that policymakers are finally recognising something many parents have known for years: children need technology designed specifically for childhood.
For too long, parents have been presented with a false choice: give a child a fully featured adult smartphone, or give them no meaningful technology at all.
Most parents aren’t looking to sign their child up to social media. They’re looking for a safe way to stay in touch as their child starts walking to school, catching the bus, spending time with friends and gaining independence.
Rather than focusing solely on what age children should gain access to adult online platforms, we should be creating better alternatives designed around children’s needs from the outset.
Whether a child is 13 or 16, many mainstream digital platforms are built to maximise engagement and screen time rather than support healthy child development. Raising the age limit may reduce access, but it only begins to address a much bigger question: what kind of technology do we want children to grow up with?
Children’s technology should help them communicate, explore independence and stay connected with friends and family, without exposing them to algorithm-driven content, social media feeds or the pressures of adult-oriented online platforms.”
Parental divide on kids’ social media could undermine ban, warns experts
The under-16 social media ban has now passed into law, but research from safeguarding experts at Virtual College [1] suggests that attitudes at home tell a very different story, and that legislation alone will not be enough to keep children safe online.
The research, based on a survey of 2,000 UK adults, reveals a striking generational divide in how parents and wider adults view children’s online safety, which helps explain why this debate has been so divisive, and why the work of protecting children online is far from over with the passing of the ban.
According to the findings:
-
Nearly 1 in 5 millennials (25-34 year olds) said they believe it’s safe for children to share photos of themselves online
-
1 in 5 younger adults (under 44) also think it’s safe for children to share opinions on their friends’ posts, as well as on strangers’, which could potentially encourage cyberbullying or dangerous online interactions.
-
In contrast, those aged 55 and over are significantly more cautious, with more than 9 in 10 believing children should not share any of the listed information online.
Safeguarding experts warn that these more relaxed attitudes risk underestimating the realities of children’s online experiences, particularly as social platforms, influencer culture and algorithm-driven content continue to expose young users to cyberbullying, unwanted contact and harmful interactions.
What parents say their children are being exposed to online
According to the research:
-
20% of parents said their child had been exposed to misinformation or false news online in the past 12 months18% said their child had encountered encouragement to buy products through influencers or undisclosed advertising
-
13% reported exposure to content that promotes unhealthy comparisons or contributes to body image concerns
-
10% say their children were victims of cyberbullying and negative comments
Mary-Ann Round, Safeguarding Expert at Virtual College, welcomed the legislation but urged parents, schools and wider society not to treat it as the end of the conversation
FARx is the only patented proprietary AI powered biometrics technology that is set to disrupt the delivery of secure online?services.
“Simply enforcing this ban with current age verification ‘age gate’ technologies isn’t enough to truly protect children and prevent access to social media platforms.
“Without accurate, continuous identity verification in place, such a ban will only be superficial with tech-savvy children being able to work around the restrictions, and is therefore doomed from the start.”
“There is no question that social media in its current form is highly damaging to children and young people. The government’s under-16s social media ban is welcomed by many but as the Prime Minister stated today it will be hard to legislate, to regulate and to enforce.
“Enforcement is the big issue here. Whilst there are excellent technologies in place to estimate the age of the person logging on to the platform, these ‘age-gate’ technologies don’t currently tie a digital identity to a biometric identity meaning they can’t continuously verify that the person using the platform is who they say they are. Or, in other words, that the “adult” accessing the One Time Passcode or changing the parental controls isn’t in fact their tech-savvy child who has figured out their password. This is a problem.
“To keep our children truly safe, technology platforms need to be installing fused biometrics – combining voice and facial signals – to be 100 per cent certain that the person using the platform is the account holder. This also continuously verifies the person throughout the session preventing any tech savvy child from being able to work around restrictions.
“Simply enforcing this ban with current age verification ‘age gate’ technologies isn’t enough to truly protect children and prevent access to social media platforms. Without accurate, continuous identity verification in place, such a ban will only be superficial with children being able to circumvent restrictions with ease and is therefore doomed from the start. To implement a ban effectively, Government must require social media platforms to implement accurate, continuous biometric identity verification as part of regulations.”
By Clive Summerfield, CEO of FARx, the world’s only fused-biometrics company
Social media ban ‘impractical, illiberal and ultimately undesirable
Responding the the Government’s ban on social media for under 16s, Dr Christopher Snowdon of the Institute of Economic Affairs said:
“We must stop judging new legislation by the good intentions of its advocates rather than its likely consequences. We know from Australia that most teenagers will get around the ban and that those who are not able to do so will suffer from social isolation.
“There are legitimate concerns about screen addiction among both children and adults, but parents are already able to restrict what their children see online and limit the number of hours they can use a smartphone. These guardrails are removed when kids log in via VPNs or sign up to platforms as adults.
“What the government is trying to do is reminiscent of attempts to ban the printing press. It is similarly impractical, illiberal and ultimately undesirable.”